Kurt Maxwell Weber <[email protected]>:
> I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not
> dissatisfied with Windows. It has its uses, as do Linux (and NetBSD, and
> Solaris, and the other operating systems I have installed at home).
Frankly,
> I don't have a problem with Microsoft. If I don't like their
product, I'm
> free to choose not to use it.
So as a user you are free to not use M$ products.
What if you are IT. Then you do not have a choice.
I have been working as a Computer Tech for approx 5 years.
When I first started (before that period actually, I speak of my Jr high
years)
I liked MS, if only b/c it was better than the other Intel solutions
(This is approx 1993 or 1994). When OS/2 came out, I thought it was
a joke (My father had it on his computer, I couldn't even get the calculator
to run).
When Win95 came out, I finally got to hate M$. Then I discovered Linux
and now I have a great dislike for M$ and their products.
I appreciate that as a user you may have a choice. As a tech or MIS/IT,
I don't have
a choice. As such I believe that I have been "damaged" by M$.
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:35:24PM -0400, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
> So as a user you are free to not use M$ products.
> What if you are IT. Then you do not have a choice.
>
You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a position where you're
working with MS products, you were the one who made the decision to do so.
MS is not at fault, claiming so is childish.
> When Win95 came out, I finally got to hate M$. Then I discovered Linux
> and now I have a great dislike for M$ and their products.
>
This makes absolutely no sense. You didn't have a problem with MS originally,
but as soon as Win95 came out you instantly hated them? A few issues with an
OS are hardly valid grounds for "hating" a company.
Also, I don't see how once you discovered Linux your hatred for MS grew. This
also makes very little sense. If you were sitting there using MS products of
your own accord, discovered a new system, and then migrated to the other
system, that's hardly a reason to demand the head of Gates because you somehow
feel you are being "forced" (of your own accord) to use their products.
Get real, look at all the moronic things that various linux distributions do.
Is this a reason to hate linux and demand the head of Linus as compensation
for your troubles?
This kind of attitude, and you wonder why MS attacks linux.
> I appreciate that as a user you may have a choice. As a tech or MIS/IT,
> I don't have a choice. As such I believe that I have been "damaged" by M$.
>
Oh please, next you'll be blaming world hunger on MS because third world
countries can't afford licenses of win2k.
Regards,
--
Paul Mundt <[email protected]>
Paul Mundt wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:35:24PM -0400, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
>
>>So as a user you are free to not use M$ products.
>>What if you are IT. Then you do not have a choice.
>>
>You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a position where you're
>working with MS products, you were the one who made the decision to do so.
>MS is not at fault, claiming so is childish.
>
>>When Win95 came out, I finally got to hate M$. Then I discovered Linux
>>and now I have a great dislike for M$ and their products.
>>
>This makes absolutely no sense. You didn't have a problem with MS originally,
>but as soon as Win95 came out you instantly hated them? A few issues with an
>OS are hardly valid grounds for "hating" a company.
>
A few issues, yeah right. I have had many problems. Much of my hatred
has to do with their bundling.
>
>Also, I don't see how once you discovered Linux your hatred for MS grew. This
>also makes very little sense. If you were sitting there using MS products of
>your own accord, discovered a new system, and then migrated to the other
>system, that's hardly a reason to demand the head of Gates because you somehow
>feel you are being "forced" (of your own accord) to use their products.
>
It didn't grow b/c of that. Never assume.
>
>Get real, look at all the moronic things that various linux distributions do.
>Is this a reason to hate linux and demand the head of Linus as compensation
>for your troubles?
>
>This kind of attitude, and you wonder why MS attacks linux.
>
Why would that make MS afraid of Linux. It should simply make them
ignore them (b/c presumably this would make Linux harmless)
>
>
>>I appreciate that as a user you may have a choice. As a tech or MIS/IT,
>>I don't have a choice. As such I believe that I have been "damaged" by M$.
>>
>Oh please, next you'll be blaming world hunger on MS because third world
>countries can't afford licenses of win2k.
>
There's always theft too, but that's beside the point. Actually, maybe
M$ causes world hunger because its tools for management are crap, or
maybe BillGates is a Habbalite. (xref In Nomine).
>
>Regards,
>
Paul Mundt wrote:
>
> Oh please, next you'll be blaming world hunger on MS because third world
> countries can't afford licenses of win2k.
Absolutely. If their governments didn't have to shell out such a large
amount of money on M$ licenses, they'd have more money to feed their
people with...
;-)
Regards,
/Mike
Paul Mundt wrote:
>
> You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a position where you're
> working with MS products, you were the one who made the decision to do so.
> MS is not at fault, claiming so is childish.
Nobody chooses to work with MS, they merely take the job that's offered.
I didn't choose to use MS, I merely chose to be able to pay the rent.
The choice is basically use MS or don't work in the computer industry.
Hell, I'd even take a pay cut if someone had a Linux job on offer.
Never seen one... never likely to either in the near future. MS
completely owns the business world (and it's not like I've not looked
either, I'd give anything to get out of the job I'm in now but there's
very few people hiring at the moment).
I don't think that MS are all wrong... I even *like* Visual Studio (not
the .NET one though, beta1 was unusable). It's just the creeping vendor
lockin that I hate.
Tony
--
"Two weeks before due date, the programmers work 22 hour days
cobbling an application from... (apparently) one programmer
bashing his face into the keyboard." -- Dilbert
[email protected]
http://www.nothing-on.tv
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:01:51PM -0700, Paul Mundt wrote:
> You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a position where you're
> working with MS products, you were the one who made the decision to do so.
> MS is not at fault, claiming so is childish.
_I_ think it's childish to claim the above. You _may_ have a choice, yes, but
is that choice equal or fair? Microsoft has infected both the user area as
much as the business/work area. If you want to purchase a PC because your
computer just fried and you want to finish a paper or something, but you
_want_ to use KOffice on Linux, and you don't care for Windows/Word
whatsoever, what are the chances that if you run down to the computer store
your "choices" will be Windows/Word, _period_! You'll then have to make sure
that none of the hardware in it is Software driven-like winmodems-and that
it's supported by Linux (or whatever OS you prefer). Almost all computers out
there (from well-known compianies) ship with winmodems. How is that a choice?
You have a choice to waste $70 on a harware modem, when someone who uses
Windows doesn't?
Then, when it comes to work, what are you choices there? You choose not to
Work for one of the Windows-based companies out there, and spend more time
looking for a different job, but at the same time you choose not to pay your
rent, feed your kids, etc. All I'm asking for is a _fair_ choice! Even if
one's lucky enough to get their preffered non-MS job, they will have to work
for some MS company while they scout around for it. So yes, we have a choice,
but going the MS way is the muuuuch easier route. And this is all owed to the
fact that MS is driving special campaigns instilling fear in the hearts of
non-MS companies, offering "great deals on software packages", "solving your
problems the right way", making you feel that if you don't go MS you're
screwed, etc. You never see SUN, do that, do you?
So what I call a choice is a fare choice. And I don't see one here.
--
Marius Nita
$_='hfflbwfsbhfzp
vs';s/(^.{4})(.{7
})(.+$)/$3 $2 $1/
;y/b-z/a-z/;print
> _I_ think it's childish to claim the above. You _may_ have a
> choice, yes, but
> is that choice equal or fair? Microsoft has infected both the
> user area as
> much as the business/work area. If you want to purchase a PC because your
> computer just fried and you want to finish a paper or something, but you
> _want_ to use KOffice on Linux, and you don't care for Windows/Word
> whatsoever, what are the chances that if you run down to the
> computer store
> your "choices" will be Windows/Word, _period_! You'll then have
> to make sure
> that none of the hardware in it is Software driven-like
> winmodems-and that
> it's supported by Linux (or whatever OS you prefer). Almost all
> computers out
> there (from well-known compianies) ship with winmodems. How is
> that a choice?
> You have a choice to waste $70 on a harware modem, when someone who uses
> Windows doesn't?
[snip]
All of these 'lack of choice' arguments aren't really about lack of choice.
They're about advantages that outweight disadvantages. How can you choose
not to eat strawberry ice cream if it's so good and your local ice cream
store doesn't carry pralines n' cream?
These arguments are fine to make, but all they really say is that you
prefer to use Microsoft software to the other alternatives because the other
alternatives are deficient in various fundamental ways.
It's hard to understand the point of such arguments. Surely you shouldn't
be upset at someone for providing you the best option you have, should you?
DS
Paul Mundt wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:35:24PM -0400, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
>
>>So as a user you are free to not use M$ products.
>>What if you are IT. Then you do not have a choice.
>>
>You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a position where you're
>working with MS products, you were the one who made the decision to do so.
>MS is not at fault, claiming so is childish.
>
Name a single tech company anywhere in the world that doesn't have to
deal with microsoftisms.
[ . . . ]
>>When Win95 came out, I finally got to hate M$. Then I discovered Linux
>>and now I have a great dislike for M$ and their products.
>>
>This makes absolutely no sense. You didn't have a problem with MS originally,
>but as soon as Win95 came out you instantly hated them? A few issues with an
>OS are hardly valid grounds for "hating" a company.
>
>Also, I don't see how once you discovered Linux your hatred for MS grew. This
>also makes very little sense. If you were sitting there using MS products of
>
It makes perfect sense to me. Take my family as an example. My wife
used Windows because she didn't know anything else existed. She crashed
and rebooted quite frequently and never knew there was an alternative.
Then she met me and was rather astounded that I hadn't rebooted my
machine in months. Now she hates Microsoft because she realizes what
bullshit she went through.
[ . . . ]
>Oh please, next you'll be blaming world hunger on MS because third world
>countries can't afford licenses of win2k.
>
Well, when you realize that Bill Gates (not MS, just Bill Gates
personally) has enough money to give every person in the world $10 out
of his pocket, then you see this argument in a different light.
(Disclaimer: This statistic was from 2 or 3 years ago. I don't know
what the figures are now.)
--
: __o
: -\<,
: 0/ 0
-----------
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 03:32:51PM -0700, Marius Nita wrote:
> _I_ think it's childish to claim the above. You _may_ have a choice, yes, but
> is that choice equal or fair? Microsoft has infected both the user area as
> much as the business/work area. If you want to purchase a PC because your
> computer just fried and you want to finish a paper or something, but you
> _want_ to use KOffice on Linux, and you don't care for Windows/Word
> whatsoever, what are the chances that if you run down to the computer store
> your "choices" will be Windows/Word, _period_! You'll then have to make sure
> that none of the hardware in it is Software driven-like winmodems-and that
> it's supported by Linux (or whatever OS you prefer). Almost all computers out
> there (from well-known compianies) ship with winmodems. How is that a choice?
> You have a choice to waste $70 on a harware modem, when someone who uses
> Windows doesn't?
>
You have lots of choices. You're simply opting to take the quick and easy way
out. Your complaint about workstations is unjustified, if you insist on buying
pre-built workstations, there are many companies that you can buy linux
workstations from (strange, I thought VA did something like that for awhile
until they backed out of the hardware business, guess I was mistaken though,
as there aren't any options).
As for modems, this isn't anything but an excuse either. Broadband is very much
commonplace these days.. being force into dialup is less and less of a problem
these days. However, paying 70$ for a peice of trash hardware modem is no one's
fault but your own, and your inability to look around.
On top of that, your entire argument is broken. If you fry your machine, you
have a pretty good chance of being able to just repair it instead of having to
replace it with an entire new machine. Or if you can't, there's always the ever
so difficult scenario of removing the damned modem from the machine and moving
it over to a different one (provided you had a software modem in the alleged
new one).
> Then, when it comes to work, what are you choices there? You choose not to
> Work for one of the Windows-based companies out there, and spend more time
> looking for a different job, but at the same time you choose not to pay your
> rent, feed your kids, etc. All I'm asking for is a _fair_ choice! Even if
> one's lucky enough to get their preffered non-MS job, they will have to work
> for some MS company while they scout around for it. So yes, we have a choice,
> but going the MS way is the muuuuch easier route. And this is all owed to the
> fact that MS is driving special campaigns instilling fear in the hearts of
> non-MS companies, offering "great deals on software packages", "solving your
> problems the right way", making you feel that if you don't go MS you're
> screwed, etc. You never see SUN, do that, do you?
>
In that case, you've made your choice, which is to work for a MS using company.
No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use MS products, you do
so of your own free will. Coming up with excuses to try and justify using
something you allege to hate so much is just pathetic.
Also, say for some reason you are "forced" into working temporarily for such
a company to pay the bills.. nothing is stopping you from looking for alternate
means of employment.
Seems to me you just want the quick and easy way out, and refuse to admit the
possibility that there are other options. Just because you haven't taken the
time to look at them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Regards,
--
Paul Mundt <[email protected]>
Perhaps I should say again that my current IT job is working w/ small
businesses and personal/home installations. In these cases, as well as
with others, it is not so much the OS that I have a problem w/. It is
the insistence of an all Macroshaft solution. Windows isn't totally bad.
I would never say so. But being forced into M$ Office, MSIE, etc, and
trying to support these arguably inferior products is a real PITA.
IE, Windows Web Sharing, MS Frontpage, etc are all bad knockoffs of
other better products (IE isn't too bad, but I still don't like it, and
I dislike Outlook{, Express} even more). Because they're M$ products,
end [l]users believe that they must be more compatible or better than
other solutions, (such as Netscape, Netscape Composer, WinRoute, etc).
M$ products are not all bad, but their marketing efforts and predatory
efforts to lock people into these products is bad.
B/c M$ products are for the end luser, the lowest common denominator, I
find them annoying when they try to fix my "mistakes", b/c they think
they know better than I do. M$ is going toward Macintrash, point &
drool, etc.
J Sloan wrote:
>Tony Hoyle wrote:
>
>>I didn't choose to use MS, I merely chose to be able to pay the rent.
>>The choice is basically use MS or don't work in the computer industry.
>>
>
>Fortunately it's not so from what I can see, although microsoft
>is frantically working to make it so.
>
>>Hell, I'd even take a pay cut if someone had a Linux job on offer.
>>Never seen one... never likely to either in the near future.
>>
>
>Have you been living under a rock for the last 2 years?
>
>Go to dice.com and search on Linux and you will numerous
>hits. My day job is to admin Linux, Solaris and HP-UX, and
>I also get a lot of side jobs doing Linux installs and remote
>Linux admin.
>
>I wish I had time to take on all the Linux work offered to me.
>
>cu
>
>jjs
>
>
>
>
>
>It's hard to understand the point of such arguments. Surely you shouldn't
>be upset at someone for providing you the best option you have, should you?
>
The point is they aren't offering the best solution! They are taking
away all others! That is why people dislike the company.
-b
--
: __o
: -\<,
: 0/ 0
-----------
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:50:44PM -0700, Ben Ford wrote:
> Name a single tech company anywhere in the world that doesn't have to
> deal with microsoftisms.
>
This depends on your definition of dealing with MSisms. If you mean having a
copy of an MS product physically present at a business location, that's
pretty much unavoidable.
If you mean working at a place where you yourself don't have to deal with it,
it all depends what line of work you're in. If you're some form of management
person, you might choose to work with Word because everyone else does, but
that goes back to it being your decision.
I can think of a lot of companies, such as WindRiver, QSSL, etc. where there
may be some level of involvement, but not everyone working in the company is
forced into things.
> It makes perfect sense to me. Take my family as an example. My wife
> used Windows because she didn't know anything else existed. She crashed
> and rebooted quite frequently and never knew there was an alternative.
> Then she met me and was rather astounded that I hadn't rebooted my
> machine in months. Now she hates Microsoft because she realizes what
> bullshit she went through.
>
What a petty thing to hate a corporation over. If you're using a company's
product of your own free will, any issues that might arise out of using
the product is something you accepted when you purchased the product.
Not knowing ones options is also not the fault of MS. If you don't do your
research before getting into something, and you get screwed as a result, it's
your own fault for not looking into things before making a decision.
> Well, when you realize that Bill Gates (not MS, just Bill Gates
> personally) has enough money to give every person in the world $10 out
> of his pocket, then you see this argument in a different light.
>
What does that have to do with anything? Someone makes some many, and they're
suddenly the cause of world hunger because they could donate all their money
but don't? This is also a moronic statement, as I seem to recall Gates
starting up a foundation for such things, and donating money to charity.
While I may not like alot of the things that MS does, or care for how Gates
does business, I'm still not going to try and blame the worlds problems on
him simply because he does some things I don't like.
Regards,
--
Paul Mundt <[email protected]>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[email protected]>
To: "LKML" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> Kurt Maxwell Weber <[email protected]>:
>
> > I'm going to take a break from lurking to point out that I am not
> > dissatisfied with Windows. It has its uses, as do Linux (and NetBSD,
and
> > Solaris, and the other operating systems I have installed at home).
> Frankly,
> > I don't have a problem with Microsoft. If I don't like their
> product, I'm
> > free to choose not to use it.
>
> So as a user you are free to not use M$ products.
> What if you are IT. Then you do not have a choice.
>
> I have been working as a Computer Tech for approx 5 years.
> When I first started (before that period actually, I speak of my Jr high
> years)
> I liked MS, if only b/c it was better than the other Intel solutions
> (This is approx 1993 or 1994). When OS/2 came out, I thought it was
> a joke (My father had it on his computer, I couldn't even get the
calculator
> to run).
>
> When Win95 came out, I finally got to hate M$. Then I discovered Linux
> and now I have a great dislike for M$ and their products.
>
> I appreciate that as a user you may have a choice. As a tech or MIS/IT,
> I don't have
> a choice. As such I believe that I have been "damaged" by M$.
>
You do have a choice over what you use. In any real-world scenario, you
will have to support a lot of what you don't like--that's why it's called a
JOB. Either support what's out there, or go into business for yourself
where you can choose what you support or not support. I have been in IT for
15 years, and quite frankly, most computer users today who do not use a Wyse
or VT100 terminal, are too dumb to use anything advanced, so they use
something like Windows.
Why not just let someone come up with a window manager that looks & acts
like Windows 9x, perfect Wine, then put linux on their systems.
Instead of blaming someone, we need to fight Microslut at their own game and
not blame someone else, but come up with solutions that are better than what
they have out there. We know Linux is technically superior, but we need now
is something that is user-superior. Microsoft is already scared of Linux,
let's give them something to be really scared of.
[snip]
> >Get real, look at all the moronic things that various linux distributions
do.
> >Is this a reason to hate linux and demand the head of Linus as
compensation
> >for your troubles?
> >
> >This kind of attitude, and you wonder why MS attacks linux.
> >
> Why would that make MS afraid of Linux. It should simply make them
> ignore them (b/c presumably this would make Linux harmless)
>
Actually if you would read the tech-news articles closely, you will see they
are attacking Open Source including the GPL license, not specifically Linux.
Linux is a threat by default because it's very heavy in GPL.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hoyle" <[email protected]>
To: "Paul Mundt" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[email protected]>; "LKML"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> Paul Mundt wrote:
>
> >
> > You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a position where
you're
> > working with MS products, you were the one who made the decision to do
so.
> > MS is not at fault, claiming so is childish.
>
> Nobody chooses to work with MS, they merely take the job that's offered.
>
> I didn't choose to use MS, I merely chose to be able to pay the rent.
> The choice is basically use MS or don't work in the computer industry.
>
> Hell, I'd even take a pay cut if someone had a Linux job on offer.
> Never seen one... never likely to either in the near future. MS
> completely owns the business world (and it's not like I've not looked
> either, I'd give anything to get out of the job I'm in now but there's
> very few people hiring at the moment).
Actually, I work a Linux Network Manager job, and I support Solaris, Linux,
and MS. MS only because some of the office folk would require more of my
time if Linux is on their system (they can't deal with it). I do have the
choice to put Linux on everyone's workstation and tell them that's what they
must have. Don't tell me I don't have a choice. I make a lot more money
because I support Linux and Unix.
Paul Mundt wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:50:44PM -0700, Ben Ford wrote:
>
>>Name a single tech company anywhere in the world that doesn't have to
>>deal with microsoftisms.
>>
>This depends on your definition of dealing with MSisms. If you mean having a
>copy of an MS product physically present at a business location, that's
>pretty much unavoidable.
>
>If you mean working at a place where you yourself don't have to deal with it,
>it all depends what line of work you're in. If you're some form of management
>person, you might choose to work with Word because everyone else does, but
>that goes back to it being your decision.
>
>I can think of a lot of companies, such as WindRiver, QSSL, etc. where there
>may be some level of involvement, but not everyone working in the company is
>forced into things.
>
I almost guarantee you that they get word docs in email. And I bet you
that most of them have been hit by the microsoft scripting viruses.
Even if they don't use outlook, they still get hit by the mails of
those who do.
>>It makes perfect sense to me. Take my family as an example. My wife
>>used Windows because she didn't know anything else existed. She crashed
>>and rebooted quite frequently and never knew there was an alternative.
>> Then she met me and was rather astounded that I hadn't rebooted my
>>machine in months. Now she hates Microsoft because she realizes what
>>bullshit she went through.
>>
>What a petty thing to hate a corporation over. If you're using a company's
>product of your own free will, any issues that might arise out of using
>the product is something you accepted when you purchased the product.
>
>Not knowing ones options is also not the fault of MS. If you don't do your
>research before getting into something, and you get screwed as a result, it's
>your own fault for not looking into things before making a decision.
>
It kind of is the fault of MS. That is why they have so many marketing
people. Remember the DR-DOS thing where you'd get misinforming errors
if you didn't run MS-DOS, inmplying that anything but was inferior and
was gonna cause you all kinds of hell?
Of course, if you knew anything about it, you knew that it was bullshit.
But you expect the entire world of non-computer people to know this???
What kind of crack are you smoking?
It also isn't "your own free will". Remember the licensing agreements
where the royalties paid to Microsoft were based on the number of
computer systems sold whether or not they had windows on them? So if
you bought a computer system (95% of the end users out there buy them
pre-built) you paid for windows whether you used it or not. And if you
wanted something else you paid for TWO operating systems. Even now, it
is quite a challenge to purchase a computer system without buying a copy
of windows.
>>Well, when you realize that Bill Gates (not MS, just Bill Gates
>>personally) has enough money to give every person in the world $10 out
>>of his pocket, then you see this argument in a different light.
>>
>What does that have to do with anything? Someone makes some many, and they're
>suddenly the cause of world hunger because they could donate all their money
>but don't? This is also a moronic statement, as I seem to recall Gates
>starting up a foundation for such things, and donating money to charity.
>
>While I may not like alot of the things that MS does, or care for how Gates
>does business, I'm still not going to try and blame the worlds problems on
>him simply because he does some things I don't like.
>
The point is, . . . that money came from somewhere . . . . .
-b
--
: __o
: -\<,
: 0/ 0
-----------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marius Nita" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:01:51PM -0700, Paul Mundt wrote:
>
> > You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a position where
you're
> > working with MS products, you were the one who made the decision to do
so.
> > MS is not at fault, claiming so is childish.
>
> _I_ think it's childish to claim the above. You _may_ have a choice, yes,
but
> is that choice equal or fair? Microsoft has infected both the user area as
Look at it from the other side. If you were in an all AIX or HPUX
environment and you wanted to support Microsoft products, it could be said
that it's not fair that you have to change jobs. Oh please.
> much as the business/work area. If you want to purchase a PC because your
> computer just fried and you want to finish a paper or something, but you
> _want_ to use KOffice on Linux, and you don't care for Windows/Word
> whatsoever, what are the chances that if you run down to the computer
store
> your "choices" will be Windows/Word, _period_! You'll then have to make
sure
What a load of crap. You *CAN* order a system with Linux on it, just go to
some computer manufacturer and ask for it. If it's not available, install
it yourself or buy a workstation from Penguin Computing, or any other Linux
hardware mfg. Retail choices are where the sales are. That's not someone
after you, it's business. The way to beat someone at business is either
break up a monopoly or beat them at their own game.
Stop blaming and do what they do better. Period.
> that none of the hardware in it is Software driven-like winmodems-and that
> it's supported by Linux (or whatever OS you prefer). Almost all computers
out
> there (from well-known compianies) ship with winmodems. How is that a
choice?
> You have a choice to waste $70 on a harware modem, when someone who uses
> Windows doesn't?
Choice is with you, not with the manufacturer. Winmodems are software
driven, so instead of down-talking the manufacturer, get a driver from a
Winmodem supplier. I have a Lucent Winmodem in my system right now, it came
with a Compaq PC and it works just fine in Linux. PCTel makes a large chunk
of winmodems and are willing to work to get a linux driver out there if we
just work with them.
Fact remains--be open minded, and you will find that there are lots of
people who want to have their products on Linux (means more money for them
in sales) if we just work with them instead of blaming them as M$ clones.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mundt" <[email protected]>
To: "Ben Ford" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[email protected]>; "LKML"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:50:44PM -0700, Ben Ford wrote:
> > Name a single tech company anywhere in the world that doesn't have to
> > deal with microsoftisms.
>
> This depends on your definition of dealing with MSisms. If you mean having
a
> copy of an MS product physically present at a business location, that's
> pretty much unavoidable.
>
> If you mean working at a place where you yourself don't have to deal with
it,
> it all depends what line of work you're in. If you're some form of
management
> person, you might choose to work with Word because everyone else does, but
> that goes back to it being your decision.
>
> I can think of a lot of companies, such as WindRiver, QSSL, etc. where
there
> may be some level of involvement, but not everyone working in the company
is
> forced into things.
What some people don't realize is that Microsoft *DID* do Unix a long time
ago, they were even into OS/2 Development. :-)
[snip]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Ford" <[email protected]>
To: "David Schwartz" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Marius Nita" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> >
> >
> >It's hard to understand the point of such arguments. Surely you shouldn't
> >be upset at someone for providing you the best option you have, should
you?
> >
>
> The point is they aren't offering the best solution! They are taking
> away all others! That is why people dislike the company.
>
I don't see them taking RedHat or Slackware away from me!
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Marius Nita wrote:
> _I_ think it's childish to claim the above. You _may_ have a choice, yes, but
> is that choice equal or fair? Microsoft has infected both the user area as
Problem: I don't like company policy
Solution: Deal or get another job
<whine>
Why should I have to spend time finding another job, it's the company's
fault for having company policies that I can't live with! They should
change their policy for me!
</whine>
> So what I call a choice is a fare choice. And I don't see one here.
Peon: Help! I installed linux at work and got fired!
Oracle: You made a bad choice.
Are you saying that the fact that there's only one good choice in this
situation is Microsoft's fault? I hope you wouldn't say "Microsoft MADE
me install linux."
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Ben Ford wrote:
> The point is they aren't offering the best solution! They are taking
> away all others! That is why people dislike the company.
They aren't taking away anything. They're flooding the market with their
software, and people are *still buying the stuff*. And people who say
Excel and Powerpoint aren't the best-in-class solutions for the needs of
most executives are kidding themselves.
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
> As demonstrated many times over the past several years, it is becoming
> increasingly difficult to buy a PC without bundled m$-ware. Even if you
> dont use m$-ware you are still forced to pay for it.
And you can get a refund if you don't agree to the license. Or you can
build your own computer. The OS isn't the only thing Dell or Compaq or
anyone else forces on you. Would you complain if you couldn't get a
machine from a major vendor with a certain disk drive, and were then
"forced" to buy it anyway, and trash the original drive?
Can this thread die please? Some people see choices, some don't. Some
people hate microsoft, some don't. Perhaps someone should start a mailing
list for "Microsoft killed my cat, wrecked my car.. now I want to sue"
discussions.
justin
Jim Roland wrote:
>[snip]
>
>>>Get real, look at all the moronic things that various linux distributions
>>>
>do.
>
>>>Is this a reason to hate linux and demand the head of Linus as
>>>
>compensation
>
>>>for your troubles?
>>>
>>>This kind of attitude, and you wonder why MS attacks linux.
>>>
>>Why would that make MS afraid of Linux. It should simply make them
>>ignore them (b/c presumably this would make Linux harmless)
>>
>
>Actually if you would read the tech-news articles closely, you will see they
>are attacking Open Source including the GPL license, not specifically Linux.
>Linux is a threat by default because it's very heavy in GPL.
>
Are you responding to me here, or to the previous statement?
I admit that I may have made a mistake in how I said some things, and
may have confused some people about how I feel about M$.
M$ is not all bad. Some of their productsa re good. Without M$s efforts
in the past Linux couldn't be as successful as it is, b/c M$ made the
IBM clones very cheap, by licensing their products they made PCs into a
huge market.
(Yes, it could be argued that somebody else could have taken their
place, their niche. _PLEASE_, try to understand my general points,
instead of nitpicking inconsequential points.)
I have a problem with M$ getting into the application business, and with
their insistence on making mediocre software and then bundling it w/
Windows. I wish they would focus on their operating system and make it
good, make it right.
Now it is also arguable that perhaps their is little money in pure
kernel/OS. And they can make more money w/ apps. But other companies
have to sell their products by the merits. M$ just sells their name.
Good for business. bad for customers. Sometimes I think that M$ could
sell us programs made by monkeys and still make money, as long as the
programs work w/ Windows (presumably the OS couldn't be by monkeys,
there has to be something of quality to sell).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Schrotenboer" <[email protected]>
To: "Jim Roland" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Paul Mundt" <[email protected]>; "LKML"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> Jim Roland wrote:
>
[snip]
> Good for business. bad for customers. Sometimes I think that M$ could
> sell us programs made by monkeys and still make money, as long as the
> programs work w/ Windows (presumably the OS couldn't be by monkeys,
> there has to be something of quality to sell).
I thought that's who wrote their software now (monkeys). :-)
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:50:44PM -0700, Ben Ford wrote:
Microsoft is like a mountain with their installed base. Like it
or not, no matter how loud the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow
to it.
:-)
Jeff
> Paul Mundt wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:35:24PM -0400, Adam Schrotenboer wrote:
> >
> >>So as a user you are free to not use M$ products.
> >>What if you are IT. Then you do not have a choice.
> >>
> >You always have a choice, work elsewhere. If you're in a position where you're
> >working with MS products, you were the one who made the decision to do so.
> >MS is not at fault, claiming so is childish.
> >
>
> Name a single tech company anywhere in the world that doesn't have to
> deal with microsoftisms.
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> >>When Win95 came out, I finally got to hate M$. Then I discovered Linux
> >>and now I have a great dislike for M$ and their products.
> >>
> >This makes absolutely no sense. You didn't have a problem with MS originally,
> >but as soon as Win95 came out you instantly hated them? A few issues with an
> >OS are hardly valid grounds for "hating" a company.
> >
> >Also, I don't see how once you discovered Linux your hatred for MS grew. This
> >also makes very little sense. If you were sitting there using MS products of
> >
> It makes perfect sense to me. Take my family as an example. My wife
> used Windows because she didn't know anything else existed. She crashed
> and rebooted quite frequently and never knew there was an alternative.
> Then she met me and was rather astounded that I hadn't rebooted my
> machine in months. Now she hates Microsoft because she realizes what
> bullshit she went through.
>
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> >Oh please, next you'll be blaming world hunger on MS because third world
> >countries can't afford licenses of win2k.
> >
>
> Well, when you realize that Bill Gates (not MS, just Bill Gates
> personally) has enough money to give every person in the world $10 out
> of his pocket, then you see this argument in a different light.
>
> (Disclaimer: This statistic was from 2 or 3 years ago. I don't know
> what the figures are now.)
>
> --
> : __o
> : -\<,
> : 0/ 0
> -----------
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Justin Guyett wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
> > As demonstrated many times over the past several years, it is becoming
> > increasingly difficult to buy a PC without bundled m$-ware. Even if you
> > dont use m$-ware you are still forced to pay for it.
> And you can get a refund if you don't agree to the license.
No, you can't. (tested & proven)
> Or you can build your own computer.
Sure.
> The OS isn't the only thing Dell or Compaq or anyone else forces on
> you. Would you complain if you couldn't get a machine from a major
> vendor with a certain disk drive, and were then "forced" to buy it
> anyway, and trash the original drive?
strawman and you know it.
-Dan
Good god, I've created a monster.
I intended to just make one point and that be the end of it, but obviously I
misjudged. I should have just sent it privately so as to prevent this flood
of OT posts. I apologize for that. I made a mistake, and now I know better.
Sorry for the trouble.
--
Regards,
Kurt Weber
[email protected]
G'damn!!!! That's so poetically accurate, I've added it to my sig list.
I've worked in a large tech corporation for many years, (20+) and I've
relatively recently had to attempt to `open` some managerial minds, and
discovered futility of it all.
"A company's public perception is an invaluable asset, that must be dealt with
kid gloves" (not to mention managerial politics and positioning)
P.S. Yes, I think that Microsoft does have some of the better software products
out there, but they'll never be able to take away my right to choose. Without
Linux, I probably wouldn't say that with such confidence!!!
PPSS Microsoft has proven that performance, is in fact, not everything, but
Gnome, and KDE have taken that point to an extreme.
PPPSSS I'm looking for that to change within 5 years.
Steve Brueggeman
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 19:11:21 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:50:44PM -0700, Ben Ford wrote:
>
>Microsoft is like a mountain with their installed base. Like it
>or not, no matter how loud the wind howls, the mountain cannot bow
>to it.
>
>:-)
>
>Jeff
>
"Jim Roland" <[email protected]> writes:
> What some people don't realize is that Microsoft *DID* do Unix a long time
> ago, they were even into OS/2 Development. :-)
And they annoyed not just a few application vendors when just a few
months after giving the message "Go with OS/2, it is the way forward",
they abandoned it in favour of NT.
>_I_ think it's childish to claim the above. You _may_ have a choice, yes, but
>is that choice equal or fair? Microsoft has infected both the user area as
>much as the business/work area. If you want to purchase a PC because your
>computer just fried and you want to finish a paper or something, but you
>_want_ to use KOffice on Linux, and you don't care for Windows/Word
>whatsoever, what are the chances that if you run down to the computer store
>your "choices" will be Windows/Word, _period_! You'll then have to make sure
>that none of the hardware in it is Software driven-like winmodems-and that
>it's supported by Linux (or whatever OS you prefer). Almost all computers out
>there (from well-known compianies) ship with winmodems. How is that a choice?
>You have a choice to waste $70 on a harware modem, when someone who uses
>Windows doesn't?
>
>--
> Marius Nita
I'm not about to defend MicroSoft, but I will say this:
When it comes to getting PC's, the best solution is to build your own.
You pick the parts you want, you choose the software to install.
This way you are sure to get a standard machine, and you get the
original CD's and manuals that make up the software.
Of course, the best bet in that area is to just download Linux from your
favorite FTP site and not worry about spending money on Microsoft products.
-- Ted
Of course, being an OS/2 person myself before Slackware 1.2, I am still (to
this day) disappointed that OS/2 was abandoned by their own creators, IBM.
I'm waiting for IBM to abandon Linux in favor of their on Mainframe systems
again.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Murray" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> "Jim Roland" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > What some people don't realize is that Microsoft *DID* do Unix a long
time
> > ago, they were even into OS/2 Development. :-)
>
> And they annoyed not just a few application vendors when just a few
> months after giving the message "Go with OS/2, it is the way forward",
> they abandoned it in favour of NT.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "J Sloan" <[email protected]>
To: "Jim Roland" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: Uncle Sam Wants YOU!
> Jim Roland wrote:
>
> > I don't see them taking RedHat or Slackware away from me!
>
> I see your point, but in a very real sense they
> are taking red hat or slackware from you -
>
> They have been pushing the industry frantically
> to make ms windows the standard and deprecate
> everything else - many people have discovered
> the frustration of "microsoft-only" web sites and
> software which exists for windows only.
>
> For those who find that they can no longer
> connect to their isp unless they are running
> ms windows, it's a rude awakening.
>
> Sure, you can keep using slackware, but
> you won't be able to connect to the internet
> if they have their way - won't that be lovely?
Sorry, I can't disagree more. Nobody is stopping me from purchasing RedHat
or any other Linux Distro at Frys Electronics, online, or downloading a free
(legal) copy of it. Nobody is stopping me from installing it on a PC, and
nobody stops me from connecting to the internet with it. In fact, my
windows machine connects to the same internet connection (cablemodem) as my
linux systems, all behind a firewall appliance which actually touches the
interface.
Fact remains, TCP/IP and IPv6 are RFC STANDARDS not Microsoft standards.
Even so, there are ways around the MS-CHAP issues preventing connections to
the internet to allow Linux systems that speak STRAIGHT TCP/IP. See also,
GTE. GTE about 3 years ago had their network fixed so that Microsoft
systems could only connect, their modem pools literally hung up the line if
you were using anything non-Microsoft. Currently, as long as you
authenticate with them properly, they don't care what you use.
How would you expain the Cisc's, Linksys's, etc? They aren't Microsoft,
besides they pass IP over the wire, any IP-compatible machine will connect
to it.
Simply put, where I live (a top 10 metro area) there are plenty of ISPs that
accept dial-ins from any system that authenticates PAP or CHAP/MS-CHAP.
Like I've been saying before...stop blaming the "Dark Empire" and let's all
come up with solutions to beat them at their own game.
I'm done with this subject, it's aleady older that the science experiment
leftovers in my refrigerator.
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Justin Guyett wrote:
>
> Problem: I don't like company policy
> Solution: Deal or get another job
Not so easy in every country.
For example in Italy the law called stauto dei lavoratori forbits workers
to change so easily.
>
>
> Peon: Help! I installed linux at work and got fired!
> Oracle: You made a bad choice.
>
Not so easy for a company, at less in Italy. In fact the statuto dei
lavoratori forbits a company to fire everyone for this kind of reasons.
Also companies are forbitten to use any audio-visive way to monitor
workers activities.
The point is that your discussion does apply just to USA, at less for the
terms you are using.
Problems out of USA are different.
I can install linux as i want, where i want, on sparc, on alpha, on ppc,
to do all I want,
but then M$ pre-sales have a good time to clean managers head, and to make
managers belive M$ is the just one way to go. And managers and politician
have power in companies, never technicians.
If I would be regularly employed, (i do prefer my freedom), i could never
be fired, of course, but anyway none would listen to me proposing linux,
just because i am a technician.
Luigi